Lukewarm Monetarists
02-07-2005, 03:09
I was in a debate with a fellow blogger about the UNOCAL deal. He was against it and I was for it. Here is what was said.
I disagree with you. The economy is not a tool for the government to use for leverage against another. If one company wishes to but another company, then the transaction should be allowed. If China becomes economically superior to the US, then that is only more incentive for the US to broaden trade and to give businesses more freedom. If the government wishes to prevent China from taking Taiwan, then it should be done in the political realm, not the economic realm. All actions can said to be justified by saying it is for the sake of security. Second of all, the government should not even have its hands in the energy business. That is a matter for each private citizen to buy for himself.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 7:31 PM by Lukewarm Monetarists
very very good. thank you for putting that situtaion on ur xanga, ppl need to read it ****applause****
Posted 7/1/2005 at 7:37 PM by lakeseason2005
"I disagree with you. The economy is not a tool for the government to use for leverage against another. If one company wishes to but another company"
hmm now lets see what my post says...
What better way to celebrate the independence of our nation then to fight to gain independence energy wise, and to not allow the energy situation to worsen by allowing China to buy. Now I can already see it... people are going say... "ohh well then you going against the free markets!!!" well no... if this were an actual company wanting to buy UNOCAL id have no problem with it... If exxon mobile wanted it or any other company for that matter... it would be fine, but the simple fact is that its not a company, and it is the Chinese government that would have entire control of UNOCAL... so no.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 7:47 PM by ProudAmerican912
"What better way to celebrate the independence of our nation then to fight to gain independence energy wise, and to not allow the energy situation to worsen by allowing China to buy."
If the people who manage UNOCAL wish to do business with the current regime, then that is their choice. They do not have a responsibility to uphold security, the only responsibility they have is to the share holders. (I am not sure if that was implied and if it wasn't I apologize.)If the Chinese gain more cobtrol of the oil then there are other nations willing to sell it to us. Energy independence? Why must the nation depend soley on its own sources? We may be energy independent, but the prices could be outrageous. China will have to be very careful if they wish to invade Taiwan because a) retaliatory action from the US and b) the Chinese have billions invested in the US and they will have to be careful if they wish to continue to profit from it.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:07 PM by Lukewarm Monetarists
Ok so in your mind Business is more important than security, and the businesses here in the United States, and im against free markets because im against a communist government owning a major US energy provider.
I touched all the things you just stated in my post so ive got no reason to respond to them.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:14 PM by ProudAmerican912
Not business, but the ability to to do so freely. It is about freedom more than security. The Chinese did not coerce UNOCAL to sell itself, they chose to do so. I never said you were against the free market. I said they should be allowed to buy UNOCAL and that the government shouldn't stop them.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:28 PM by Lukewarm Monetarists
UNOCAL will still have the freedom to sell to any company it wishes...but no communist government that actively threatens the US. Its in the interests of the master strategy of the US that we not allow our economy to be controlled by foreign entities, and right now your saying that we should just go against all of our interest, and become more dependant on energy sources from overseas, even if it puts us at the mercy of the Chinese.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:45 PM by ProudAmerican912
LM, I understand your concerns for the sanctity of the free market against the urges of a democratic body dedicated only to its own preservation. However I must offer this dissent.
Its in the interests of the master strategy of the US that we not allow our economy to be controlled by foreign entities. Even apart from being a foreign entity, it must be acknowledged that the illiberal, communist regime of China is very much a potential enemy.
UNOCAL is an essential part of our economy, providing much-needed energy in a time where energy is even more scarce than usual. The communist regime of China cannot be allowed to control such a vital asset of our economy, even if stopping such a transaction requires a morally questionable act by the US government.
I agree with you that it is improper for one nation to use its economy as a weapon against another, however these are extraordinary circumstances. If we allowed the Chinese government to gain control of UNOCAL, the squeeze on our economy would threaten our ability to maintain free markets in the future. The American people have not proven themselves adverse to voting themselves the money of the wealthy, especially in hard times. Can we really afford to gamble our economic security and the very existence of future free markets for the sake of ideological purity?
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:56 PM by Liberal_Lion
Am I in the wrong?
I disagree with you. The economy is not a tool for the government to use for leverage against another. If one company wishes to but another company, then the transaction should be allowed. If China becomes economically superior to the US, then that is only more incentive for the US to broaden trade and to give businesses more freedom. If the government wishes to prevent China from taking Taiwan, then it should be done in the political realm, not the economic realm. All actions can said to be justified by saying it is for the sake of security. Second of all, the government should not even have its hands in the energy business. That is a matter for each private citizen to buy for himself.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 7:31 PM by Lukewarm Monetarists
very very good. thank you for putting that situtaion on ur xanga, ppl need to read it ****applause****
Posted 7/1/2005 at 7:37 PM by lakeseason2005
"I disagree with you. The economy is not a tool for the government to use for leverage against another. If one company wishes to but another company"
hmm now lets see what my post says...
What better way to celebrate the independence of our nation then to fight to gain independence energy wise, and to not allow the energy situation to worsen by allowing China to buy. Now I can already see it... people are going say... "ohh well then you going against the free markets!!!" well no... if this were an actual company wanting to buy UNOCAL id have no problem with it... If exxon mobile wanted it or any other company for that matter... it would be fine, but the simple fact is that its not a company, and it is the Chinese government that would have entire control of UNOCAL... so no.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 7:47 PM by ProudAmerican912
"What better way to celebrate the independence of our nation then to fight to gain independence energy wise, and to not allow the energy situation to worsen by allowing China to buy."
If the people who manage UNOCAL wish to do business with the current regime, then that is their choice. They do not have a responsibility to uphold security, the only responsibility they have is to the share holders. (I am not sure if that was implied and if it wasn't I apologize.)If the Chinese gain more cobtrol of the oil then there are other nations willing to sell it to us. Energy independence? Why must the nation depend soley on its own sources? We may be energy independent, but the prices could be outrageous. China will have to be very careful if they wish to invade Taiwan because a) retaliatory action from the US and b) the Chinese have billions invested in the US and they will have to be careful if they wish to continue to profit from it.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:07 PM by Lukewarm Monetarists
Ok so in your mind Business is more important than security, and the businesses here in the United States, and im against free markets because im against a communist government owning a major US energy provider.
I touched all the things you just stated in my post so ive got no reason to respond to them.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:14 PM by ProudAmerican912
Not business, but the ability to to do so freely. It is about freedom more than security. The Chinese did not coerce UNOCAL to sell itself, they chose to do so. I never said you were against the free market. I said they should be allowed to buy UNOCAL and that the government shouldn't stop them.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:28 PM by Lukewarm Monetarists
UNOCAL will still have the freedom to sell to any company it wishes...but no communist government that actively threatens the US. Its in the interests of the master strategy of the US that we not allow our economy to be controlled by foreign entities, and right now your saying that we should just go against all of our interest, and become more dependant on energy sources from overseas, even if it puts us at the mercy of the Chinese.
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:45 PM by ProudAmerican912
LM, I understand your concerns for the sanctity of the free market against the urges of a democratic body dedicated only to its own preservation. However I must offer this dissent.
Its in the interests of the master strategy of the US that we not allow our economy to be controlled by foreign entities. Even apart from being a foreign entity, it must be acknowledged that the illiberal, communist regime of China is very much a potential enemy.
UNOCAL is an essential part of our economy, providing much-needed energy in a time where energy is even more scarce than usual. The communist regime of China cannot be allowed to control such a vital asset of our economy, even if stopping such a transaction requires a morally questionable act by the US government.
I agree with you that it is improper for one nation to use its economy as a weapon against another, however these are extraordinary circumstances. If we allowed the Chinese government to gain control of UNOCAL, the squeeze on our economy would threaten our ability to maintain free markets in the future. The American people have not proven themselves adverse to voting themselves the money of the wealthy, especially in hard times. Can we really afford to gamble our economic security and the very existence of future free markets for the sake of ideological purity?
Posted 7/1/2005 at 8:56 PM by Liberal_Lion
Am I in the wrong?